Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 621 | control, N = 311 | treatment, N = 311 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 62 | 50.77 ± 12.57 (25 - 74) | 50.28 ± 13.07 (25 - 74) | 51.27 ± 12.25 (31 - 72) | 0.761 |
gender | 62 | 0.783 | |||
f | 43 (69%) | 21 (68%) | 22 (71%) | ||
m | 19 (31%) | 10 (32%) | 9 (29%) | ||
occupation | 62 | 0.951 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (9.7%) | 4 (13%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
other | 2 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
part_time | 10 (16%) | 5 (16%) | 5 (16%) | ||
retired | 15 (24%) | 7 (23%) | 8 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
student | 1 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
unemploy | 17 (27%) | 9 (29%) | 8 (26%) | ||
marital | 62 | >0.999 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
divore | 5 (8.1%) | 3 (9.7%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
married | 14 (23%) | 7 (23%) | 7 (23%) | ||
none | 36 (58%) | 18 (58%) | 18 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.8%) | 2 (6.5%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.8%) | 1 (3.2%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
edu | 62 | 0.992 | |||
bachelor | 19 (31%) | 9 (29%) | 10 (32%) | ||
diploma | 10 (16%) | 6 (19%) | 4 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.8%) | 2 (6.5%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
primary | 5 (8.1%) | 2 (6.5%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (6.5%) | 2 (6.5%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (23%) | 7 (23%) | 7 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
fam_income | 62 | 0.899 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (4.8%) | 1 (3.2%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (6.5%) | 2 (6.5%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (8.1%) | 2 (6.5%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (4.8%) | 3 (9.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (15%) | 6 (19%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (15%) | 4 (13%) | 5 (16%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (9.7%) | 2 (6.5%) | 4 (13%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (15%) | 4 (13%) | 5 (16%) | ||
medication | 62 | 52 (84%) | 27 (87%) | 25 (81%) | 0.490 |
onset_duration | 62 | 15.34 ± 11.97 (0 - 56) | 17.35 ± 13.20 (1 - 56) | 13.32 ± 10.43 (0 - 35) | 0.187 |
onset_age | 62 | 35.44 ± 13.56 (15 - 64) | 32.93 ± 11.96 (16 - 55) | 37.94 ± 14.76 (15 - 64) | 0.147 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 621 | control, N = 311 | treatment, N = 311 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 62 | 3.26 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.26 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.26 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | >0.999 |
recovery_stage_b | 62 | 17.95 ± 2.59 (9 - 23) | 17.84 ± 2.79 (9 - 23) | 18.06 ± 2.41 (14 - 23) | 0.734 |
ras_confidence | 62 | 30.27 ± 4.59 (19 - 40) | 29.81 ± 4.21 (19 - 40) | 30.74 ± 4.96 (20 - 39) | 0.427 |
ras_willingness | 62 | 12.05 ± 1.99 (7 - 15) | 11.90 ± 1.83 (9 - 15) | 12.19 ± 2.15 (7 - 15) | 0.569 |
ras_goal | 62 | 17.40 ± 2.79 (12 - 24) | 17.48 ± 2.64 (12 - 23) | 17.32 ± 2.97 (12 - 24) | 0.822 |
ras_reliance | 62 | 13.23 ± 2.85 (8 - 20) | 13.03 ± 2.64 (8 - 18) | 13.42 ± 3.07 (8 - 20) | 0.597 |
ras_domination | 62 | 10.06 ± 2.22 (3 - 15) | 10.61 ± 1.89 (7 - 15) | 9.52 ± 2.42 (3 - 14) | 0.051 |
symptom | 62 | 30.06 ± 9.61 (14 - 56) | 30.00 ± 9.11 (14 - 48) | 30.13 ± 10.22 (15 - 56) | 0.958 |
slof_work | 62 | 22.31 ± 4.81 (10 - 30) | 22.45 ± 4.38 (15 - 30) | 22.16 ± 5.27 (10 - 30) | 0.814 |
slof_relationship | 62 | 25.60 ± 5.91 (11 - 35) | 25.42 ± 5.99 (13 - 35) | 25.77 ± 5.93 (11 - 35) | 0.815 |
satisfaction | 62 | 20.84 ± 6.33 (5 - 30) | 19.52 ± 5.91 (5 - 29) | 22.16 ± 6.55 (5 - 30) | 0.100 |
mhc_emotional | 62 | 11.31 ± 3.65 (4 - 18) | 11.10 ± 3.07 (6 - 17) | 11.52 ± 4.19 (4 - 18) | 0.654 |
mhc_social | 62 | 14.53 ± 5.01 (6 - 26) | 14.84 ± 5.07 (7 - 26) | 14.23 ± 5.02 (6 - 23) | 0.634 |
mhc_psychological | 62 | 21.95 ± 5.82 (6 - 36) | 21.61 ± 5.55 (10 - 33) | 22.29 ± 6.15 (6 - 36) | 0.650 |
resilisnce | 62 | 16.55 ± 4.57 (6 - 25) | 16.29 ± 4.63 (6 - 24) | 16.81 ± 4.58 (7 - 25) | 0.660 |
social_provision | 62 | 13.65 ± 2.96 (5 - 20) | 13.35 ± 2.64 (8 - 20) | 13.94 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 0.445 |
els_value_living | 62 | 17.19 ± 2.91 (5 - 23) | 16.71 ± 2.47 (12 - 22) | 17.68 ± 3.26 (5 - 23) | 0.192 |
els_life_fulfill | 62 | 12.77 ± 3.21 (4 - 18) | 11.77 ± 3.06 (5 - 17) | 13.77 ± 3.07 (4 - 18) | 0.013 |
els | 62 | 29.97 ± 5.41 (9 - 40) | 28.48 ± 4.48 (20 - 36) | 31.45 ± 5.92 (9 - 40) | 0.030 |
social_connect | 62 | 27.00 ± 9.23 (8 - 48) | 27.26 ± 7.95 (8 - 45) | 26.74 ± 10.48 (8 - 48) | 0.828 |
shs_agency | 62 | 14.32 ± 4.58 (3 - 21) | 13.61 ± 4.24 (3 - 20) | 15.03 ± 4.85 (3 - 21) | 0.225 |
shs_pathway | 62 | 16.55 ± 3.70 (4 - 22) | 16.03 ± 3.41 (8 - 22) | 17.06 ± 3.95 (4 - 22) | 0.275 |
shs | 62 | 30.87 ± 7.71 (7 - 42) | 29.65 ± 7.22 (14 - 41) | 32.10 ± 8.11 (7 - 42) | 0.214 |
esteem | 62 | 12.52 ± 1.21 (10 - 15) | 12.58 ± 1.12 (10 - 14) | 12.45 ± 1.31 (10 - 15) | 0.678 |
mlq_search | 62 | 14.87 ± 3.42 (3 - 21) | 14.97 ± 3.25 (6 - 21) | 14.77 ± 3.63 (3 - 20) | 0.826 |
mlq_presence | 62 | 13.52 ± 4.05 (3 - 21) | 13.65 ± 3.34 (6 - 20) | 13.39 ± 4.71 (3 - 21) | 0.804 |
mlq | 62 | 28.39 ± 6.63 (6 - 41) | 28.61 ± 5.87 (12 - 40) | 28.16 ± 7.40 (6 - 41) | 0.791 |
empower | 62 | 19.63 ± 4.20 (6 - 28) | 19.32 ± 3.87 (11 - 24) | 19.94 ± 4.55 (6 - 28) | 0.570 |
ismi_resistance | 62 | 14.61 ± 2.71 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.26 (11 - 19) | 14.74 ± 3.13 (5 - 20) | 0.711 |
ismi_discrimation | 62 | 11.40 ± 3.36 (5 - 19) | 12.35 ± 2.92 (5 - 18) | 10.45 ± 3.55 (5 - 19) | 0.025 |
sss_affective | 62 | 10.02 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 10.65 ± 3.44 (3 - 18) | 9.39 ± 4.40 (3 - 18) | 0.215 |
sss_behavior | 62 | 9.76 ± 4.06 (3 - 18) | 10.58 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 8.94 ± 4.05 (3 - 18) | 0.111 |
sss_cognitive | 62 | 8.35 ± 4.10 (3 - 18) | 8.68 ± 4.28 (3 - 18) | 8.03 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 0.540 |
sss | 62 | 28.13 ± 11.25 (9 - 54) | 29.90 ± 10.38 (9 - 54) | 26.35 ± 11.95 (9 - 54) | 0.217 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.26 | 0.218 | 2.83, 3.68 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.308 | -0.603, 0.603 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.254 | 0.339 | -0.410, 0.918 | 0.457 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.047 | 0.463 | -0.861, 0.955 | 0.920 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.486 | 16.9, 18.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.226 | 0.687 | -1.12, 1.57 | 0.743 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.100 | 0.686 | -1.44, 1.24 | 0.884 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.540 | 0.935 | -1.29, 2.37 | 0.567 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.886 | 28.1, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.935 | 1.254 | -1.52, 3.39 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.496 | 0.979 | -1.42, 2.42 | 0.615 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.065 | 1.331 | -2.54, 2.67 | 0.961 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.364 | 11.2, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.290 | 0.515 | -0.718, 1.30 | 0.574 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.839 | 0.360 | -1.55, -0.133 | 0.026 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.665 | 0.489 | -0.294, 1.62 | 0.182 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.548 | 16.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 0.775 | -1.68, 1.36 | 0.836 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.849 | 0.618 | -2.06, 0.361 | 0.176 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.50 | 0.840 | -0.144, 3.15 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.505 | 12.0, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.387 | 0.714 | -1.01, 1.79 | 0.589 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.242 | 0.465 | -0.669, 1.15 | 0.605 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.744 | 0.631 | -0.493, 1.98 | 0.246 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.395 | 9.84, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.10 | 0.559 | -2.19, -0.002 | 0.053 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.537 | 0.539 | -1.59, 0.519 | 0.324 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.34 | 0.734 | -0.102, 2.78 | 0.076 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 1.745 | 26.6, 33.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.129 | 2.468 | -4.71, 4.97 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.684 | 1.265 | -3.16, 1.80 | 0.592 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.121 | 1.716 | -3.48, 3.24 | 0.944 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.873 | 20.7, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.290 | 1.234 | -2.71, 2.13 | 0.815 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.123 | 0.706 | -1.51, 1.26 | 0.863 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.17 | 0.957 | -3.05, 0.703 | 0.229 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.4 | 1.062 | 23.3, 27.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.355 | 1.502 | -2.59, 3.30 | 0.814 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.20 | 1.007 | -3.18, 0.772 | 0.241 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.592 | 1.368 | -2.09, 3.27 | 0.668 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 1.189 | 17.2, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.65 | 1.682 | -0.651, 5.94 | 0.120 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.871 | 1.367 | -1.81, 3.55 | 0.528 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.72 | 1.859 | -5.37, 1.92 | 0.360 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.657 | 9.81, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.419 | 0.929 | -1.40, 2.24 | 0.653 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.692 | 0.635 | -0.553, 1.94 | 0.283 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.26 | 0.862 | -2.95, 0.433 | 0.154 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.946 | 13.0, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.613 | 1.338 | -3.24, 2.01 | 0.648 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.26 | 1.066 | -0.834, 3.35 | 0.246 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.40 | 1.449 | -4.24, 1.44 | 0.340 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 1.111 | 19.4, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.677 | 1.571 | -2.40, 3.76 | 0.668 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.979 | 1.182 | -1.34, 3.29 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.12 | 1.605 | -5.27, 1.03 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.791 | 14.7, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.516 | 1.119 | -1.68, 2.71 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.540 | 0.757 | -0.943, 2.02 | 0.480 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.160 | 1.027 | -1.85, 2.17 | 0.877 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.523 | 12.3, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.581 | 0.740 | -0.870, 2.03 | 0.435 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.417 | 0.574 | -1.54, 0.708 | 0.472 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.273 | 0.780 | -1.26, 1.80 | 0.728 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.522 | 15.7, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.968 | 0.738 | -0.479, 2.41 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.627 | 0.547 | -0.446, 1.70 | 0.259 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.487 | 0.743 | -1.94, 0.970 | 0.516 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.536 | 10.7, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.00 | 0.758 | 0.515, 3.49 | 0.010 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 0.572 | 0.025, 2.27 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.929 | 0.778 | -2.45, 0.595 | 0.240 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.090 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.939 | 26.6, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.97 | 1.328 | 0.366, 5.57 | 0.029 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.70 | 0.925 | -0.116, 3.51 | 0.074 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.34 | 1.257 | -3.80, 1.12 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.067 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.3 | 1.634 | 24.1, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.516 | 2.311 | -5.05, 4.01 | 0.824 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.598 | 1.333 | -2.02, 3.21 | 0.657 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.501 | 1.809 | -4.05, 3.04 | 0.783 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.826 | 12.0, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.42 | 1.169 | -0.871, 3.71 | 0.229 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.380 | 0.856 | -1.30, 2.06 | 0.659 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.239 | 1.163 | -2.04, 2.52 | 0.838 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.656 | 14.7, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.03 | 0.928 | -0.787, 2.85 | 0.270 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.582 | 0.599 | -0.592, 1.76 | 0.338 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.735 | 0.813 | -2.33, 0.858 | 0.372 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.377 | 26.9, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.45 | 1.948 | -1.37, 6.27 | 0.212 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.911 | 1.284 | -1.61, 3.43 | 0.483 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.420 | 1.743 | -3.84, 3.00 | 0.811 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.217 | 12.2, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.129 | 0.307 | -0.731, 0.473 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.600 | 0.373 | -0.132, 1.33 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.323 | 0.513 | -1.33, 0.682 | 0.532 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.619 | 13.8, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.194 | 0.876 | -1.91, 1.52 | 0.826 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.045 | 0.799 | -1.61, 1.52 | 0.956 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.044 | 1.088 | -2.18, 2.09 | 0.968 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.6 | 0.720 | 12.2, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.258 | 1.018 | -2.25, 1.74 | 0.801 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.017 | 0.885 | -1.72, 1.75 | 0.985 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.113 | 1.204 | -2.25, 2.47 | 0.926 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.6 | 1.213 | 26.2, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.452 | 1.716 | -3.81, 2.91 | 0.793 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.036 | 1.512 | -3.00, 2.93 | 0.981 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.064 | 2.058 | -3.97, 4.10 | 0.975 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 0.726 | 17.9, 20.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.613 | 1.027 | -1.40, 2.63 | 0.553 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.132 | 0.710 | -1.26, 1.52 | 0.853 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.851 | 0.965 | -2.74, 1.04 | 0.384 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.461 | 13.6, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.258 | 0.652 | -1.02, 1.54 | 0.693 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.549 | 0.658 | -0.742, 1.84 | 0.409 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.630 | 0.898 | -2.39, 1.13 | 0.487 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.591 | 11.2, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.90 | 0.836 | -3.54, -0.264 | 0.026 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.960 | 0.595 | -2.13, 0.206 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.50 | 0.808 | -0.085, 3.08 | 0.072 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.685 | 9.30, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.26 | 0.969 | -3.16, 0.641 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.020 | 0.599 | -1.15, 1.20 | 0.973 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.852 | 0.813 | -2.45, 0.742 | 0.302 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.694 | 9.22, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.65 | 0.982 | -3.57, 0.279 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.300 | 0.648 | -1.57, 0.970 | 0.646 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.377 | 0.880 | -2.10, 1.35 | 0.671 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.68 | 0.725 | 7.26, 10.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.645 | 1.025 | -2.65, 1.36 | 0.531 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.855 | 0.609 | -0.339, 2.05 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.65 | 0.826 | -3.27, -0.035 | 0.053 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.948 | 26.1, 33.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.55 | 2.755 | -8.95, 1.85 | 0.202 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.645 | 1.538 | -2.37, 3.66 | 0.678 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.94 | 2.086 | -7.03, 1.14 | 0.167 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.26 (95% CI [2.83, 3.68], t(89) = 14.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.18e-15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.60], t(89) = 2.01e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -9.11e-17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.92], t(89) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.95], t(89) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [16.89, 18.79], t(89) = 36.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.57], t(89) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.24], t(89) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.37], t(89) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.88])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [28.07, 31.54], t(89) = 33.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.39], t(89) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.42], t(89) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.54, 2.67], t(89) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.90 (95% CI [11.19, 12.62], t(89) = 32.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.30], t(89) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.13], t(89) = -2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.62], t(89) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.41, 18.56], t(89) = 31.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.36], t(89) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.36], t(89) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.15], t(89) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.04, 14.02], t(89) = 25.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.79], t(89) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(89) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.98], t(89) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.84, 11.39], t(89) = 26.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.19, -1.71e-03], t(89) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.99, -7.72e-04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.52], t(89) = -1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.78], t(89) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.00 (95% CI [26.58, 33.42], t(89) = 17.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-4.71, 4.97], t(89) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.16, 1.80], t(89) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-3.48, 3.24], t(89) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.45 (95% CI [20.74, 24.16], t(89) = 25.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.71, 2.13], t(89) = -0.24, p = 0.814; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.26], t(89) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.70], t(89) = -1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.42 (95% CI [23.34, 27.50], t(89) = 23.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.59, 3.30], t(89) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.77], t(89) = -1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.27], t(89) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.52 (95% CI [17.19, 21.85], t(89) = 16.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.65, 95% CI [-0.65, 5.94], t(89) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.89])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.81, 3.55], t(89) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-5.37, 1.92], t(89) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.10 (95% CI [9.81, 12.38], t(89) = 16.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.24], t(89) = 0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.94], t(89) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.95, 0.43], t(89) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [12.98, 16.69], t(89) = 15.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.24, 2.01], t(89) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.83, 3.35], t(89) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.24, 1.44], t(89) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.61 (95% CI [19.44, 23.79], t(89) = 19.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-2.40, 3.76], t(89) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-1.34, 3.29], t(89) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.12, 95% CI [-5.27, 1.03], t(89) = -1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [14.74, 17.84], t(89) = 20.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.71], t(89) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.02], t(89) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.17], t(89) = 0.16, p = 0.877; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.35 (95% CI [12.33, 14.38], t(89) = 25.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.03], t(89) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.71], t(89) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.80], t(89) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.71 (95% CI [15.69, 17.73], t(89) = 32.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.41], t(89) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.70], t(89) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.97], t(89) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [10.72, 12.82], t(89) = 21.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [0.51, 3.49], t(89) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.17, 1.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [0.03, 2.27], t(89) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [8.08e-03, 0.73])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.59], t(89) = -1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.48 (95% CI [26.64, 30.32], t(89) = 30.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.97, 95% CI [0.37, 5.57], t(89) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.07, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.51], t(89) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.80, 1.12], t(89) = -1.07, p = 0.287; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.26 (95% CI [24.06, 30.46], t(89) = 16.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-5.05, 4.01], t(89) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.02, 3.21], t(89) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-4.05, 3.04], t(89) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.61 (95% CI [11.99, 15.23], t(89) = 16.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.71], t(89) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.80])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.06], t(89) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.52], t(89) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.03 (95% CI [14.75, 17.32], t(89) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.85], t(89) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.76], t(89) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.86], t(89) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.65 (95% CI [26.95, 32.34], t(89) = 21.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.45, 95% CI [-1.37, 6.27], t(89) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.43], t(89) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-3.84, 3.00], t(89) = -0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.15, 13.01], t(89) = 57.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.47], t(89) = -0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.33], t(89) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.68], t(89) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.75, 16.18], t(89) = 24.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.52], t(89) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.52], t(89) = -0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.09], t(89) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.61e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.65 (95% CI [12.23, 15.06], t(89) = 18.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.74], t(89) = -0.25, p = 0.800; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.75], t(89) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 4.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.47], t(89) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.61 (95% CI [26.23, 30.99], t(89) = 23.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.81, 2.91], t(89) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.93], t(89) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -5.35e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.97, 4.10], t(89) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 9.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [17.90, 20.75], t(89) = 26.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.63], t(89) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.52], t(89) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.04], t(89) = -0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.58, 15.39], t(89) = 31.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.54], t(89) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.84], t(89) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.13], t(89) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.20, 13.51], t(89) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.90, 95% CI [-3.54, -0.26], t(89) = -2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.21], t(89) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.08], t(89) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.30, 11.99], t(89) = 15.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.64], t(89) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.20], t(89) = 0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = 5.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.74], t(89) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.58 (95% CI [9.22, 11.94], t(89) = 15.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.28], t(89) = -1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.97], t(89) = -0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.35], t(89) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.68 (95% CI [7.26, 10.10], t(89) = 11.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.36], t(89) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.05], t(89) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.03], t(89) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, -8.70e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.09, 33.72], t(89) = 15.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.55, 95% CI [-8.95, 1.85], t(89) = -1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.66], t(89) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-7.03, 1.14], t(89) = -1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 306.892 | 314.554 | -150.446 | 300.892 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 311.361 | 326.684 | -149.680 | 299.361 | 1.532 | 3 | 0.675 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 454.483 | 462.144 | -224.241 | 448.483 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 459.539 | 474.862 | -223.769 | 447.539 | 0.944 | 3 | 0.815 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 555.881 | 563.542 | -274.940 | 549.881 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 560.526 | 575.850 | -274.263 | 548.526 | 1.355 | 3 | 0.716 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 384.834 | 392.495 | -189.417 | 378.834 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 384.832 | 400.155 | -186.416 | 372.832 | 6.002 | 3 | 0.112 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 467.755 | 475.417 | -230.878 | 461.755 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 470.360 | 485.683 | -229.180 | 458.360 | 3.395 | 3 | 0.335 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 442.928 | 450.590 | -218.464 | 436.928 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 442.514 | 457.837 | -215.257 | 430.514 | 6.414 | 3 | 0.093 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 418.051 | 425.713 | -206.025 | 412.051 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 418.636 | 433.959 | -203.318 | 406.636 | 5.415 | 3 | 0.144 |
symptom | null | 3 | 658.083 | 665.745 | -326.042 | 652.083 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 663.270 | 678.594 | -325.635 | 651.270 | 0.813 | 3 | 0.846 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 536.782 | 544.444 | -265.391 | 530.782 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 538.459 | 553.782 | -263.230 | 526.459 | 4.323 | 3 | 0.229 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 581.655 | 589.317 | -287.828 | 575.655 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 585.707 | 601.030 | -286.853 | 573.707 | 1.948 | 3 | 0.583 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 615.408 | 623.069 | -304.704 | 609.408 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 618.655 | 633.978 | -303.327 | 606.655 | 2.753 | 3 | 0.431 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 491.754 | 499.416 | -242.877 | 485.754 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 495.582 | 510.905 | -241.791 | 483.582 | 2.172 | 3 | 0.537 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 570.166 | 577.828 | -282.083 | 564.166 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 574.080 | 589.404 | -281.040 | 562.080 | 2.086 | 3 | 0.555 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 597.021 | 604.683 | -295.511 | 591.021 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 601.179 | 616.502 | -294.589 | 589.179 | 1.842 | 3 | 0.606 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 526.176 | 533.837 | -260.088 | 520.176 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 530.289 | 545.612 | -259.144 | 518.289 | 1.887 | 3 | 0.596 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 455.501 | 463.163 | -224.751 | 449.501 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 460.007 | 475.331 | -224.004 | 448.007 | 1.494 | 3 | 0.684 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 453.663 | 461.324 | -223.831 | 447.663 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 456.760 | 472.083 | -222.380 | 444.760 | 2.903 | 3 | 0.407 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 466.833 | 474.494 | -230.416 | 460.833 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 462.873 | 478.196 | -225.437 | 450.873 | 9.959 | 3 | 0.019 |
els | null | 3 | 566.409 | 574.070 | -280.204 | 560.409 | |||
els | random | 6 | 564.615 | 579.938 | -276.307 | 552.615 | 7.794 | 3 | 0.050 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 652.524 | 660.186 | -323.262 | 646.524 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 658.219 | 673.542 | -323.109 | 646.219 | 0.305 | 3 | 0.959 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 540.085 | 547.747 | -267.043 | 534.085 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 543.374 | 558.698 | -265.687 | 531.374 | 2.711 | 3 | 0.438 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 487.832 | 495.494 | -240.916 | 481.832 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 491.892 | 507.215 | -239.946 | 479.892 | 1.941 | 3 | 0.585 |
shs | null | 3 | 630.313 | 637.974 | -312.156 | 624.313 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 634.007 | 649.330 | -311.003 | 622.007 | 2.306 | 3 | 0.511 |
esteem | null | 3 | 311.657 | 319.319 | -152.829 | 305.657 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 313.656 | 328.979 | -150.828 | 301.656 | 4.001 | 3 | 0.261 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 495.258 | 502.920 | -244.629 | 489.258 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 501.170 | 516.493 | -244.585 | 489.170 | 0.088 | 3 | 0.993 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 521.232 | 528.894 | -257.616 | 515.232 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 527.150 | 542.473 | -257.575 | 515.150 | 0.082 | 3 | 0.994 |
mlq | null | 3 | 621.119 | 628.781 | -307.560 | 615.119 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 627.044 | 642.367 | -307.522 | 615.044 | 0.076 | 3 | 0.995 |
empower | null | 3 | 510.777 | 518.438 | -252.388 | 504.777 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 515.343 | 530.666 | -251.671 | 503.343 | 1.434 | 3 | 0.698 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 445.001 | 452.662 | -219.500 | 439.001 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 450.253 | 465.576 | -219.127 | 438.253 | 0.747 | 3 | 0.862 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 479.096 | 486.758 | -236.548 | 473.096 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 478.055 | 493.378 | -233.027 | 466.055 | 7.041 | 3 | 0.071 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 496.363 | 504.025 | -245.182 | 490.363 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 497.401 | 512.724 | -242.701 | 485.401 | 4.962 | 3 | 0.175 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 502.991 | 510.652 | -248.495 | 496.991 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 503.926 | 519.250 | -245.963 | 491.926 | 5.064 | 3 | 0.167 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 504.780 | 512.441 | -249.390 | 498.780 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 505.580 | 520.904 | -246.790 | 493.580 | 5.199 | 3 | 0.158 |
sss | null | 3 | 689.093 | 696.754 | -341.546 | 683.093 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 689.510 | 704.833 | -338.755 | 677.510 | 5.583 | 3 | 0.134 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 31 | 3.26 ± 1.21 | 31 | 3.26 ± 1.21 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 15 | 3.51 ± 1.20 | -0.247 | 18 | 3.56 ± 1.21 | -0.293 | 0.912 | -0.045 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 31 | 17.84 ± 2.70 | 31 | 18.06 ± 2.70 | 0.743 | -0.111 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 15 | 17.74 ± 2.60 | 0.049 | 18 | 18.50 ± 2.62 | -0.216 | 0.403 | -0.377 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 31 | 29.81 ± 4.94 | 31 | 30.74 ± 4.94 | 0.458 | -0.334 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 15 | 30.30 ± 4.33 | -0.177 | 18 | 31.30 ± 4.45 | -0.200 | 0.516 | -0.357 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 31 | 11.90 ± 2.03 | 31 | 12.19 ± 2.03 | 0.575 | -0.284 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 15 | 11.06 ± 1.72 | 0.822 | 18 | 12.02 ± 1.78 | 0.170 | 0.121 | -0.936 |
ras_goal | 1st | 31 | 17.48 ± 3.05 | 31 | 17.32 ± 3.05 | 0.836 | 0.091 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 15 | 16.63 ± 2.70 | 0.480 | 18 | 17.98 ± 2.77 | -0.369 | 0.164 | -0.758 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 31 | 13.03 ± 2.81 | 31 | 13.42 ± 2.81 | 0.589 | -0.295 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 15 | 13.27 ± 2.33 | -0.185 | 18 | 14.41 ± 2.43 | -0.752 | 0.177 | -0.863 |
ras_domination | 1st | 31 | 10.61 ± 2.20 | 31 | 9.52 ± 2.20 | 0.053 | 0.692 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 15 | 10.08 ± 2.09 | 0.339 | 18 | 10.32 ± 2.11 | -0.505 | 0.743 | -0.152 |
symptom | 1st | 31 | 30.00 ± 9.72 | 31 | 30.13 ± 9.72 | 0.958 | -0.037 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 15 | 29.32 ± 7.61 | 0.194 | 18 | 29.32 ± 8.04 | 0.228 | 0.998 | -0.002 |
slof_work | 1st | 31 | 22.45 ± 4.86 | 31 | 22.16 ± 4.86 | 0.815 | 0.147 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 15 | 22.33 ± 3.90 | 0.062 | 18 | 20.87 ± 4.09 | 0.656 | 0.297 | 0.741 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 31 | 25.42 ± 5.91 | 31 | 25.77 ± 5.91 | 0.814 | -0.125 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 15 | 24.22 ± 4.95 | 0.423 | 18 | 25.16 ± 5.14 | 0.215 | 0.592 | -0.333 |
satisfaction | 1st | 31 | 19.52 ± 6.62 | 31 | 22.16 ± 6.62 | 0.120 | -0.674 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 15 | 20.39 ± 5.90 | -0.222 | 18 | 21.31 ± 6.04 | 0.217 | 0.659 | -0.235 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 31 | 11.10 ± 3.66 | 31 | 11.52 ± 3.66 | 0.653 | -0.233 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 15 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | -0.385 | 18 | 10.95 ± 3.19 | 0.315 | 0.446 | 0.466 |
mhc_social | 1st | 31 | 14.84 ± 5.27 | 31 | 14.23 ± 5.27 | 0.648 | 0.201 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 15 | 16.09 ± 4.66 | -0.411 | 18 | 14.08 ± 4.78 | 0.048 | 0.225 | 0.659 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 31 | 21.61 ± 6.19 | 31 | 22.29 ± 6.19 | 0.668 | -0.201 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 15 | 22.59 ± 5.36 | -0.291 | 18 | 21.15 ± 5.53 | 0.339 | 0.450 | 0.429 |
resilisnce | 1st | 31 | 16.29 ± 4.41 | 31 | 16.81 ± 4.41 | 0.646 | -0.241 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 15 | 16.83 ± 3.69 | -0.252 | 18 | 17.51 ± 3.84 | -0.327 | 0.609 | -0.316 |
social_provision | 1st | 31 | 13.35 ± 2.91 | 31 | 13.94 ± 2.91 | 0.435 | -0.354 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 15 | 12.94 ± 2.55 | 0.254 | 18 | 13.79 ± 2.62 | 0.087 | 0.347 | -0.520 |
els_value_living | 1st | 31 | 16.71 ± 2.91 | 31 | 17.68 ± 2.91 | 0.194 | -0.621 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 15 | 17.34 ± 2.51 | -0.402 | 18 | 17.82 ± 2.59 | -0.089 | 0.590 | -0.309 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 31 | 11.77 ± 2.98 | 31 | 13.77 ± 2.98 | 0.010 | -1.226 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 15 | 12.92 ± 2.59 | -0.703 | 18 | 13.99 ± 2.67 | -0.133 | 0.246 | -0.657 |
els | 1st | 31 | 28.48 ± 5.23 | 31 | 31.45 ± 5.23 | 0.029 | -1.132 | ||
els | 2nd | 15 | 30.18 ± 4.42 | -0.648 | 18 | 31.81 ± 4.59 | -0.137 | 0.303 | -0.621 |
social_connect | 1st | 31 | 27.26 ± 9.10 | 31 | 26.74 ± 9.10 | 0.824 | 0.138 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 15 | 27.86 ± 7.31 | -0.160 | 18 | 26.84 ± 7.68 | -0.026 | 0.698 | 0.272 |
shs_agency | 1st | 31 | 13.61 ± 4.60 | 31 | 15.03 ± 4.60 | 0.229 | -0.583 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 15 | 13.99 ± 3.96 | -0.156 | 18 | 15.65 ± 4.08 | -0.255 | 0.240 | -0.681 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 31 | 16.03 ± 3.65 | 31 | 17.06 ± 3.65 | 0.270 | -0.612 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 15 | 16.61 ± 3.02 | -0.345 | 18 | 16.91 ± 3.15 | 0.091 | 0.784 | -0.176 |
shs | 1st | 31 | 29.65 ± 7.67 | 31 | 32.10 ± 7.67 | 0.212 | -0.677 | ||
shs | 2nd | 15 | 30.56 ± 6.38 | -0.251 | 18 | 32.59 ± 6.64 | -0.136 | 0.374 | -0.561 |
esteem | 1st | 31 | 12.58 ± 1.21 | 31 | 12.45 ± 1.21 | 0.676 | 0.110 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 15 | 13.18 ± 1.23 | -0.510 | 18 | 12.73 ± 1.23 | -0.236 | 0.295 | 0.384 |
mlq_search | 1st | 31 | 14.97 ± 3.45 | 31 | 14.77 ± 3.45 | 0.826 | 0.083 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 15 | 14.92 ± 3.20 | 0.019 | 18 | 14.69 ± 3.25 | 0.038 | 0.833 | 0.102 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 31 | 13.65 ± 4.01 | 31 | 13.39 ± 4.01 | 0.801 | 0.101 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 15 | 13.66 ± 3.66 | -0.007 | 18 | 13.52 ± 3.73 | -0.051 | 0.910 | 0.057 |
mlq | 1st | 31 | 28.61 ± 6.76 | 31 | 28.16 ± 6.76 | 0.793 | 0.103 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 15 | 28.58 ± 6.19 | 0.008 | 18 | 28.19 ± 6.30 | -0.006 | 0.859 | 0.088 |
empower | 1st | 31 | 19.32 ± 4.04 | 31 | 19.94 ± 4.04 | 0.553 | -0.305 | ||
empower | 2nd | 15 | 19.45 ± 3.41 | -0.066 | 18 | 19.22 ± 3.54 | 0.358 | 0.845 | 0.119 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 31 | 14.48 ± 2.57 | 31 | 14.74 ± 2.57 | 0.693 | -0.132 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 15 | 15.03 ± 2.48 | -0.281 | 18 | 14.66 ± 2.49 | 0.042 | 0.669 | 0.190 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 31 | 12.35 ± 3.29 | 31 | 10.45 ± 3.29 | 0.026 | 1.128 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 15 | 11.39 ± 2.80 | 0.569 | 18 | 10.99 ± 2.90 | -0.319 | 0.686 | 0.240 |
sss_affective | 1st | 31 | 10.65 ± 3.81 | 31 | 9.39 ± 3.81 | 0.199 | 0.747 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 15 | 10.67 ± 3.12 | -0.012 | 18 | 8.56 ± 3.26 | 0.494 | 0.061 | 1.253 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 31 | 10.58 ± 3.86 | 31 | 8.94 ± 3.86 | 0.098 | 0.900 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 15 | 10.28 ± 3.22 | 0.164 | 18 | 8.26 ± 3.35 | 0.370 | 0.081 | 1.106 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 31 | 8.68 ± 4.04 | 31 | 8.03 ± 4.04 | 0.531 | 0.378 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 15 | 9.53 ± 3.27 | -0.501 | 18 | 7.23 ± 3.42 | 0.468 | 0.052 | 1.347 |
sss | 1st | 31 | 29.90 ± 10.84 | 31 | 26.35 ± 10.84 | 0.202 | 0.825 | ||
sss | 2nd | 15 | 30.55 ± 8.65 | -0.150 | 18 | 24.06 ± 9.10 | 0.535 | 0.039 | 1.510 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(86.50) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.61)
2st
t(90.50) = 0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.88)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(81.12) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.59)
2st
t(90.40) = 0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.58)
ras_confidence
1st
t(71.48) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.43)
2st
t(90.95) = 0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.05)
ras_willingness
1st
t(68.83) = 0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.32)
2st
t(90.20) = 1.57, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.17)
ras_goal
1st
t(72.04) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.38)
2st
t(90.99) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.24)
ras_reliance
1st
t(67.46) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.81)
2st
t(89.15) = 1.36, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.78)
ras_domination
1st
t(79.38) = -1.96, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.21 to 0.02)
2st
t(90.49) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.70)
symptom
1st
t(64.35) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.80 to 5.06)
2st
t(83.35) = 0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-5.42 to 5.44)
slof_work
1st
t(65.54) = -0.24, p = 0.815, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.75 to 2.17)
2st
t(86.32) = -1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.23 to 1.31)
slof_relationship
1st
t(67.98) = 0.24, p = 0.814, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.35)
2st
t(89.62) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.45)
satisfaction
1st
t(72.65) = 1.57, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.71 to 6.00)
2st
t(91.00) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.22 to 5.06)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(68.34) = 0.45, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.27)
2st
t(89.89) = -0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.34)
mhc_social
1st
t(72.04) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.28 to 2.05)
2st
t(90.99) = -1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-5.29 to 1.26)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(70.46) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.46 to 3.81)
2st
t(90.80) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.22 to 2.33)
resilisnce
1st
t(68.13) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.75)
2st
t(89.74) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.29)
social_provision
1st
t(71.27) = 0.78, p = 0.435, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.06)
2st
t(90.93) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.65)
els_value_living
1st
t(70.11) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.44)
2st
t(90.71) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.25)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(70.57) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.49 to 3.51)
2st
t(90.82) = 1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.89)
els
1st
t(68.73) = 2.24, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.32 to 5.62)
2st
t(90.14) = 1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.50 to 4.75)
social_connect
1st
t(65.65) = -0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-5.13 to 4.10)
2st
t(86.54) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-6.22 to 4.18)
shs_agency
1st
t(69.83) = 1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.75)
2st
t(90.63) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.13 to 4.45)
shs_pathway
1st
t(67.29) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.89)
2st
t(88.97) = 0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.44)
shs
1st
t(67.67) = 1.26, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.44 to 6.34)
2st
t(89.35) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.55)
esteem
1st
t(90.81) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.48)
2st
t(90.97) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.40)
mlq_search
1st
t(76.87) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.55)
2st
t(90.70) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.48 to 2.00)
mlq_presence
1st
t(74.93) = -0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.77)
2st
t(90.88) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.71 to 2.42)
mlq
1st
t(75.47) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.87 to 2.97)
2st
t(90.83) = -0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.72 to 3.95)
empower
1st
t(68.58) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.66)
2st
t(90.05) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.65 to 2.17)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(81.70) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.56)
2st
t(90.38) = -0.43, p = 0.669, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.35)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(69.16) = -2.28, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.23)
2st
t(90.37) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.57)
sss_affective
1st
t(66.62) = -1.30, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.19 to 0.68)
2st
t(88.16) = -1.90, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-4.32 to 0.10)
sss_behavior
1st
t(67.69) = -1.68, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.31)
2st
t(89.37) = -1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.26)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(66.04) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.40)
2st
t(87.25) = -1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.62 to 0.02)
sss
1st
t(65.25) = -1.29, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-9.05 to 1.95)
2st
t(85.69) = -2.10, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-12.65 to -0.34)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(44.11) = 0.94, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(40.65) = 0.69, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.73)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(35.92) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.40)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(34.75) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(36.17) = 1.14, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.81)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(34.15) = 2.30, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.86)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(39.71) = 1.59, p = 0.239, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.82)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(32.83) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.56)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.33) = -2.00, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.02)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.38) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.28)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(36.45) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.42 to 1.72)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.54) = -0.96, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.62)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(36.17) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.86)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(35.47) = -1.04, p = 0.606, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.36 to 1.08)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(34.44) = 1.00, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.12)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(35.82) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.93)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(35.31) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.17)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(35.51) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.29)
els
1st vs 2st
t(34.71) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.09)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.38) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.59)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(35.19) = 0.78, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.23)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(34.08) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.97)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.24) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.91 to 2.90)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(49.45) = 0.78, p = 0.875, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.99)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(38.43) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.42)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(37.50) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.80)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(37.75) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.82 to 2.88)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(34.64) = -1.10, p = 0.561, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.61)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(40.97) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.16)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(34.89) = 0.98, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.65)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(33.80) = -1.51, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.29)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(34.25) = -1.13, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.54)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.55) = -1.43, p = 0.326, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.34)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.21) = -1.63, p = 0.227, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.17 to 0.58)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(47.65) = 0.74, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(43.21) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.30)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(37.16) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.49)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(35.68) = -2.31, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-1.57 to -0.10)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(37.47) = -1.37, p = 0.361, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.41)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(34.93) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(42.00) = -0.99, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.56)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(33.27) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.27 to 1.90)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.90) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(35.21) = -1.19, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.85)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(37.83) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.66)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(35.41) = 1.08, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.99)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(37.48) = 1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.43)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(36.58) = 0.82, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.39)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(35.29) = 0.71, p = 0.966, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.08)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(37.04) = -0.72, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.75)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(36.39) = 1.14, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.74)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(36.64) = 1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.31)
els
1st vs 2st
t(35.62) = 1.82, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.59)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.96) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.32)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(36.23) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.13)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(34.84) = 0.97, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.80)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(35.04) = 0.71, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.53)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(54.39) = 1.59, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.36)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(40.37) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.59)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(39.17) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.82)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(39.50) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(35.54) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.58)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(43.63) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.89)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(35.86) = -1.60, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.25)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(34.48) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.24)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(35.05) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(34.16) = 1.40, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.10)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.74) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.78)